5 of two police cars per shift, 24 hours a day at the home of Mrs. Socorro Mosquera, and that she also has a cellular phone provided by the Protection Program of the Department of the Interior and Justice. 15. That in its observations, the representative indicated that the adequate security conditions that will allow Mrs. María del Socorro Mosquera to return home are not those informed by the State since the latter “[i]s in the obligation to offer the beneficiaries and their representative participation in the planning and implementation of the measures to be taken.”. The representative stated that he has repeated to the State that Mrs. Socorro Mosquera “[d]oes not live at the home where her children reside, but the Metropolitan Police insists on guarding it, assuming on occasions hostile attitudes against [her] children” who live there. Besides, the representative informed that the security offered by agents of the Metropolitan Police has been suspended upon request of the beneficiary even though the State has not taken any effective measure of material protection. In these terms, it asked this Tribunal that the measures adopted by the State be agreed on with the beneficiary and the representative maintaining her domicile undisclosed. 16. That the Inter-American Commission reiterated that it does not have elements regarding the determination of the location of Socorro Mosquera, which must be provided by the representative to the State in order to assign the protection. Besides, it referred to “[t]he importance that the design and coordination of material protection measures be decided with the participation of the beneficiaries and their representatives, without overlooking the efforts destined to eliminating the risk factors within the framework of mechanisms of commitment.” 17. That in its Order of September 22, 2006 (supra Having Seen paragraph 2) the InterAmerican Court stated that “[w]ith regard to María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, the Commission and the representatives have reported that she is an intra-urban displaced person and that, due to the danger that exists, it has been decided to keep information on her current place of residence confidential; moreover, at the present time, she has no plans to return to her family home […].” In this sense, the Tribunal ordered that once the beneficiary informed of her desire to return to her home it be informed to the State so that it could immediately adopt all necessary measures to protect her life and personal integrity (Considering Paragraph number 12 of the Order of September 22, 2006). Of the information presented by the representative it cannot be concluded that this situation has occurred, which prevents the State from implementing the measures of protection in favor of Mrs. Mosquera Londoño. The Court reiterates that the beneficiary’s decision to maintain her domicile confidential must be respected and that the implementation of the measures of protection in her favor must be previously agreed on with the representatives (supra Having Seen Paragraph 2). 18. In view of the aforementioned, it is necessary that the parties inform the Tribunal of the measures agreed on with regard to this matter in order to supervise their correct implementation. * * * 19. That regarding the investigation of the facts that motivated the adoption of provisional measures in the present matter, the representative stated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office “[h]as not made any advances in the investigation, because the